That’s a good point, and joggers and endurance athletes will often bring this up when arguing that long distance endurance activity is healthy and “natural”.

De Vany argues that persistence hunting was/is quite different from the standard long distance endurance activity, as it involved long stretches of varying degrees of movement, from walking, sprinting, light running, rather than continuous jogging within a narrow cardiovascular range.

So there’s arguments for both sides, and it’s far from settled. It’s an individual judgment call at this point I suppose.

“Some fitness experts, notably Arthur De Vany … have argued that endurance training is destructive and unhealthy.”

The persistence hunting hypothesis for human hairlessness is the most reasonable one I’ve heard of, particularly since it is still practiced today. That being said, if the calorie restriction people are to be believed – metabolism = aging; supercharging one’s metabolism for decades at a time is bound to have deleterious effects.

De Vany has argued that it’s very plausible that Armstrong’s intense regimen and diet could’ve contributed to his cancer. The hours of endurance training coupled with high energy carbohydrate based diet could’ve stimulated cancer growth.

To be honest, Im not much of a fan of endurance sports. I feel the human body was designed to only take so much. The blogger HalfSigma (who admittedly can be a little annoying at times) has chronicled some of the deaths during/after marathons and triatholons on his blog from time to time. If I did do an endurance sport, it would be cycling. The wear and tear on the joints from running just would not be worth it.

I think most endurance athletes be it professional or at-home amateurs are addicted to dopamine release. I remember when I ran back in my high school days. That first half mile or so was always tough, but that “high” started to kick in thereafter and I’d feel invincible and all the usual stuff.